The same people who identified Z196 in the data of the 1000 Genomes Project have found another SNP below P312 which is independent of all other SNPs currently known there: it has been named DF19. It was found in three P312* individuals- two from Britain and one from central Europe (nfd). They estimate about 3 to 11 percent of P312(XL21,U152,L176.2) will be positive for it. FTDNA is already offering testing for it, and a number of orders have been placed for it. However all but one from France have surnames from the British Isles, so I am expecting a repeat of the scenario with L21, where the pundits try to assign an origin for it in the British Isles, based on the early testing results. We need some testing from those with continental ancestry. I believe DF19 wasn't found in any of the 1000 Genomes individuals of Iberian ancestry, so it may be primarily nothern European.

Two out of three of the 1000 Genomes samples in which DF19 was initially found were from Britain, so it seems unlikely that it will be primarily continental. However I hope the continental presence will be sufficient to prevent some of the absurd positions taken L21 was first discovered.

As to L238, it is proving to be extremely rare. So far it has only been found in Sweden, Norway and England.

FTDNA has announced the first four results for DF19. Three with origins in England were all negative (one is Z196+); the only positive is from Germany.

The German DF19+ has origins in Lower Saxony. We know that two of the three DF19+ from the 1000 Genomes Project were from Great Britain. Of course it is far too early to draw any inferences, but I have been trying to think of possible connections between the two areas. So far the following scenarios come to mind:

1) a wandering British monk who went to Germany to try to convert the pagan Saxons,2) a Scottish merchant or mercenary who shipped out from Aberdeen to Hannover,3) a member of the "highly mobile medieval merchant class" (such as innkeepers) who migrated from Britain to Germany.

FTDNA has announced the first four results for DF19. Three with origins in England were all negative (one is Z196+); the only positive is from Germany.

The German DF19+ has origins in Lower Saxony. We know that two of the three DF19+ from the 1000 Genomes Project were from Great Britain. Of course it is far too early to draw any inferences, but I have been trying to think of possible connections between the two areas. So far the following scenarios come to mind:

1) a wandering British monk who went to Germany to try to convert the pagan Saxons,2) a Scottish merchant or mercenary who shipped out from Aberdeen to Hannover,3) a member of the "highly mobile medieval merchant class" (such as innkeepers) who migrated from Britain to Germany.

Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

You forgot the medieval tourist industry, or was that covered under option 1 ??

FTDNA has announced the first four results for DF19. Three with origins in England were all negative (one is Z196+); the only positive is from Germany.

The German DF19+ has origins in Lower Saxony. We know that two of the three DF19+ from the 1000 Genomes Project were from Great Britain. Of course it is far too early to draw any inferences, but I have been trying to think of possible connections between the two areas. So far the following scenarios come to mind:

1) a wandering British monk who went to Germany to try to convert the pagan Saxons,2) a Scottish merchant or mercenary who shipped out from Aberdeen to Hannover,3) a member of the "highly mobile medieval merchant class" (such as innkeepers) who migrated from Britain to Germany.

Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

You forgot the medieval tourist industry, or was that covered under option 1 ??

Excellent point. The monks probably were involved in the medieval pilgrimage tourist trade, but I think it's better to add a fourth possibility: a British pilgrim to the shrine of St. Iago de Hannover.

FTDNA has announced the first four results for DF19. Three with origins in England were all negative (one is Z196+); the only positive is from Germany.

The German DF19+ has origins in Lower Saxony. We know that two of the three DF19+ from the 1000 Genomes Project were from Great Britain. Of course it is far too early to draw any inferences, but I have been trying to think of possible connections between the two areas. So far the following scenarios come to mind:

1) a wandering British monk who went to Germany to try to convert the pagan Saxons,2) a Scottish merchant or mercenary who shipped out from Aberdeen to Hannover,3) a member of the "highly mobile medieval merchant class" (such as innkeepers) who migrated from Britain to Germany.Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

You forgot the medieval tourist industry, or was that covered under option 1 ??

Excellent point. The monks probably were involved in the medieval pilgrimage tourist trade, but I think it's better to add a fourth possibility: a British pilgrim to the shrine of St. Iago de Hannover.

'There is another consideration. In a couple of family cases I hear stories of British soldiers that may have been involved.I don't know, but I do think that we pay a great deal of attention to the Bryan Sykes' perspective of ancient populations' heavy influence on the genetic composition of a people. That's all fine, but perhaps in terms of paternal lineages, recent influences may be more critical.It's obvious that large sublclades like M222 and L226 made a huge difference in paternal lineages.So why wouldn't soldiers of the empire "of which the sun never set", that is the British empire, have made an impact?I'm not in anyway saying they would have the same impact of Nialls or Ghengis Kahn, but they still could be apparent, at least in terms of populations that have affinity towards gin/quinine and DNA testing.

FTDNA has announced the first four results for DF19. Three with origins in England were all negative (one is Z196+); the only positive is from Germany.

The German DF19+ has origins in Lower Saxony. We know that two of the three DF19+ from the 1000 Genomes Project were from Great Britain. Of course it is far too early to draw any inferences, but I have been trying to think of possible connections between the two areas. So far the following scenarios come to mind:

1) a wandering British monk who went to Germany to try to convert the pagan Saxons,2) a Scottish merchant or mercenary who shipped out from Aberdeen to Hannover,3) a member of the "highly mobile medieval merchant class" (such as innkeepers) who migrated from Britain to Germany.Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

You forgot the medieval tourist industry, or was that covered under option 1 ??

Excellent point. The monks probably were involved in the medieval pilgrimage tourist trade, but I think it's better to add a fourth possibility: a British pilgrim to the shrine of St. Iago de Hannover.

'There is another consideration. In a couple of family cases I hear stories of British soldiers that may have been involved.I don't know, but I do think that we pay a great deal of attention to the Bryan Sykes' perspective of ancient populations' heavy influence on the genetic composition of a people. That's all fine, but perhaps in terms of paternal lineages, recent influences may be more critical.It's obvious that large sublclades like M222 and L226 made a huge difference in paternal lineages.So why wouldn't soldiers of the empire "of which the sun never set", that is the British empire, have made an impact?I'm not in anyway saying they would have the same impact of Nialls or Ghengis Kahn, but they still could be apparent, at least in terms of populations that have affinity towards gin/quinine and DNA testing.

I'm not completely convinced you're treating this discussion with the seriousness which it obviously merits, but you do have a good point. Modern events should be considered, perhaps even preferred, when explaining away these sort of genetic anomalies. So though it is rather similar to the Scottish mercenary scenario, I will therefor add a British soldier serving in the Hannoverian army to the list.

I should also note that after the unification of Germany, the 20th Prussian Army Corps was headquartered in Hannover. Enlisting in its ranks would be a natural choice for British youth seeking an exciting and carefree experience abroad, with the added bonus of the always present possibility of an all-expenses paid visit to Paris.

We just got our first DF19+ result in the R-P312 and Subclades Project: Garrett, kit 166103, who traces his ancestry to Ireland. Garrett doesn't sound like a native Gaelic Irish surname to me, but I could be wrong about that.

I created an R-DF19 category. Right now, he's the only one in it.

We've had a couple of DF19- results. As I recall, both of them were Spanish guys.

We just got our first DF19+ result in the R-P312 and Subclades Project: Garrett, kit 166103, who traces his ancestry to Ireland. Garrett doesn't sound like a native Gaelic Irish surname to me, but I could be wrong about that.

I created an R-DF19 category. Right now, he's the only one in it.

We've had a couple of DF19- results. As I recall, both of them were Spanish guys.

There is a boatload of overdue DF19 tests on the Pending Lab Results page at the R-P312 and Subclades Project.

I hope those results start rolling in. Some of them are over a month late already, closing in on two months.

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

That's good, I think. Sounds like possibly the fourth largest brother subclade of P312 after L21, U152 and Z196.

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

Hopefully, I understand well that rms2 is managing the R-P312 and Subclades Project. Assuming I am right, I have one question. Why is the Marwede's DF19+ result ( the E4870 kit) not added to Pab R-DF19 group? Is there any specific reason?

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

Hopefully, I understand well that rms2 is managing the R-P312 and Subclades Project. Assuming I am right, I have one question. Why is the Marwede's DF19+ result ( the E4870 kit) not added to Pab R-DF19 group? Is there any specific reason?

I'll look at it, but I don't recall that one coming up on the "Received Lab Results" page. Since DF19 is not yet on the YCC Tree, a member's haplogroup designator doesn't change when he gets a DF19+ result. The only way I know he is DF19+ is to see a notification on the "Received Lab Results" page and then check to see if it's positive. I don't remember seeing that one appear on the page, but maybe I missed it. It's a big project with a lot of results, and it's not the only one I manage.

NOTE: I got it now. Thanks for letting me know. He's been placed in the R-DF19 category.

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

I tested positive for DF19 and should be the one (kit# 55699) with ancestry in Scotland.

Was just on ISOGG's Y-DNA Haplogroup R and its Subclades -2011 webpage and they assigned R1b1a2a1a1b6 as being provisional. Guess once it is confirmed, then this will become my new haplogroup.

My marker for 385b=15.

Having read through the thread on the possibilities of how this new SNP could have landed in the cited countries, I have to agree with Goldenhind that it was probably introduced into those local populations via a warrior (sailor/soldier) .

Having served in the US Navy for over 24 years, I've known guys that fathered children with the native women of some of the foreign countries that we visited while deployed.

I'm interested to find out what area the DF19 donor originates and from what time frame.

I am DF19+ - kit #196999. I have not stated my surname on the project website - the reason is that my and my father's surname is not a surname of our ancestors due to the adoption. I think it is better, generelly, to state no name instead of a surname, which has no relation to a paternal line. The identity of my grandfather is not clear, although there are some hypoyheses. Assuming one of them is right, my ancestors from paternal male line lived in the area of the present Czech Republic at least from beggining of the 19th century - either in the area of the town Liberec (Reichenberg) or in the area of the towns Jicin and Kopidlno.

We got a bunch of DF19 results in the R-P312 and Subclades Project this evening. By far, most of them were negative.

The positive results were interesting, though: one with a British Isles surname (Fletcher) brick-walled in the USA, one with ancestry in Ireland, one with ancestry in Scotland, one with ancestry in Belgium, and one with ancestry in the Czech Republic.

But that was it: five positive results out 42 total. That's about 12%.

Maybe now would be a good time to start the discussion on the possible tribal backgrounds of DF19? I’ve had a quick look at the GD between the confirmed DF19+ samples, and I got the impression that this SNP is quite young, which would be really interesting.

I’ve compared the Marwede, Fletcher, White, Andrew, Garrett, 196999, Verelst and Verhelst samples (the latter being related to me, with a MRCA born in 1596 and with a GD of 104/111). Among these 8 samples the greatest GD at 67 markers is only 19 (i.e. a 48/67 match). Although the sample number is still very small, the positives do come from quite different geographical locations. It would suggest that DF19 is probably not older than 2000 years, and my preliminary estimates (with 30 years per generation and about 50 – 60 generations since the MRCA) roughly point at a period between 200 and 400 AD. Unfortunately I've made no distinction here between slow and fast mutating markers.

Given the fact that this SNP appears to be this young, and that it has thusfar been found in northern Germany, in Belgium and in the UK and Ireland, and that a few of the putative positives (= not yet tested for DF19 but with a GD < 16 to nearly all DF19+ samples) are French, I was thinking DF19 might be connected to the Saxons.

Historically there is some controversy about the original location of the Saxon people: most historicians place them in northern Germany, but according to the theory of Albert Delahaye they were originally living in northern France and Flanders. Maybe the truth lies in the middle, as already in the 3rd century the Saxons were reported to operate as pirates along the North Sea coast, and they may already have settled there during that time. Around the year 804 emperor Charlemagne allegedly ended a long episode of warfare against the Saxons by resettling an estimated 10.000 of them in another location, and the question remains whether they were moved from northern Germany to northern France, or from northern France to northern Germany… Whatever the truth may be and whatever the direction of the deportation, this historic event links the people of northern Germany to those of northern France and the Belgian coastline, during the first few centuries after the origin of DF19; as of the early 9th century Saxons were most likely living in both these locations. In addition, there is also a clear link to the British people, as the Saxons are of course known to have populated the British Isles in the 5th century, from wherever they were living at that time, and descendants of the Saxons that lived in northern France and Flanders most likely were also incorporated in the Norman armies that invaded England in the 11th century. For all these reasons I have a feeling that DF19 might be connected to the Saxons, but time and more test results may tell whether this could indeed be the case...

Has anyone else perhaps already done a more thorough GD survey, MRCA estimation or variance study for DF19? Or perhaps a comparison to M153 variance, which was also suggested to be rather young?

The Saxons - "men of the Seax", their characteristic, short, single-edged sword - were a relatively new confederation of Germans whose tribes earlier had other names, at least judging from Tacitus' Germania. I believe the Cherusci was one of the old tribes that went into the Saxon mix.

They didn't originate in northern France, although some of them raided and settled there. I think they came from among the tribes of the North Sea coast between the Ijssel and the Elbe.

I believe the Cherusci was one of the old tribes that went into the Saxon mix.

They didn't originate in northern France, although some of them raided and settled there. I think they came from among the tribes of the North Sea coast between the Ijssel and the Elbe.

I agree, that's probably true. I'm simply curious to find out whether DF19 is really as young as it appears to be. Based on the available data I think it may have originated shortly after the individual Germanic tribes had merged to form e.g. the Saxon and Frankish entities, and before the Saxons started settling in Britain and along the French/Belgian coastline... At least this scenario could nicely explain the distribution we're seeing in the first few positive samples, in northern Germany, the UK and Belgium (and probably France), but of course it's too early to say much more than that.

The Saxons - "... They didn't originate in northern France, although some of them raided and settled there. I think they came from among the tribes of the North Sea coast between the Ijssel and the Elbe.

The Saxons - "... They didn't originate in northern France, although some of them raided and settled there. I think they came from among the tribes of the North Sea coast between the Ijssel and the Elbe.

What's the earliest record of Saxons raiding northern France?

I don't know exactly, but it must have been fairly early, probably by the early 4th century at least, because the Romans built a system of shore forts in that period on the Gallic side of the Channel. They seem to have been aimed at preventing Saxon raids. The first raids probably predate those forts.

The Romans patrolled the Channel with a pretty effective fleet, so it wasn't until the turmoil of the 5th century that the Saxons would have been able to raid northern France with anything like a free hand.

Of course, the Romans also built a system of coastal forts in what is now England at about the same time, from Brancaster down the east coast and round the Channel all the way to Portchester.